Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
On 09/16/2014 02:04 PM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: -Original Message- From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com] Sent: 16 September 2014 18:10 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines On 09/16/2014 10:16 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: In my point of view it makes life much easier if we have information where the request failed The request did not fail. The HTTP request succeeded and Glance returned a 404 Not Found. If the caller was expecting an image to be there, but it wasn't, then it can log the 404 in whatever log level is most appropriate. The point is that DEBUG log level is appropriate for the glanceclient logs, since the glanceclient doesn't know if a 404 is something to be concerned about or not. To glanceclient, the call succeeded. Communication with the Glance API server worked, authentication worked, and the server returned successfully stating that the image does not exist. -jay Still this is not about glanceclient logging. On that discussion I fully agree that less is more what comes to logging. When we try to update an image in the glance code and that fails because the image is not there, I do not care where that gets stated to the end user. Yes you do. If the user understands the error message because it is clear (i.e. "You tried to update an image record, but the image was not found."), then the ops person does not get a ticket saying "the whole system is down, please help me." Instead, they get a ticket saying "why does this image no longer exist?" > What I care about is that when the user starts asking what happened, I don't get called up from the bed because the ops responsible for the service have no idea. Having the glanceclient log a WARN message in the log file if the image was not found is not going to help the ops person in the slightest. That information is already going to be in the ticket, with the description "Why does this image no longer exist?". Having the following in the operator logs: WARN: Image XYZ not found. is entirely useless to the operator. It offers them no further information whatsoever versus what is already in the error message that was returned to the user and likely copy/pasted into the help ticket. > I also care that the ops does not need to run through million lines of debugging logs just because they would not get the info without. The reality is after all that even in developer point of view the request did not fail, user point of view it did. We must keep in mind that somewhere out there is bunch of people using these services outside of devstack who does not know the code and how it behaves internally. Yes, I keep that in mind. I was one of them. > They see the log messages if any and need to try to get the answers for the people who knows even less about the internals. There is a difference between log messages and error messages that are returned to the user. You are, IMHO, confusing the two. -jay ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
> -Original Message- > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com] > Sent: 16 September 2014 18:10 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log > level > guidelines > > On 09/16/2014 10:16 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: > > In my point of view it makes life > > much easier if we have information where the request failed > > The request did not fail. The HTTP request succeeded and Glance returned a > 404 Not Found. If the caller was expecting an image to be there, but it > wasn't, > then it can log the 404 in whatever log level is most appropriate. > > The point is that DEBUG log level is appropriate for the glanceclient logs, > since > the glanceclient doesn't know if a 404 is something to be concerned about or > not. To glanceclient, the call succeeded. > Communication with the Glance API server worked, authentication worked, > and the server returned successfully stating that the image does not exist. > > -jay > Still this is not about glanceclient logging. On that discussion I fully agree that less is more what comes to logging. When we try to update an image in the glance code and that fails because the image is not there, I do not care where that gets stated to the end user. What I care about is that when the user starts asking what happened, I don't get called up from the bed because the ops responsible for the service have no idea. I also care that the ops does not need to run through million lines of debugging logs just because they would not get the info without. The reality is after all that even in developer point of view the request did not fail, user point of view it did. We must keep in mind that somewhere out there is bunch of people using these services outside of devstack who does not know the code and how it behaves internally. They see the log messages if any and need to try to get the answers for the people who knows even less about the internals. - Erno ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
On 09/16/2014 10:16 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: > In my point of view it makes life much easier if we have information where the request failed The request did not fail. The HTTP request succeeded and Glance returned a 404 Not Found. If the caller was expecting an image to be there, but it wasn't, then it can log the 404 in whatever log level is most appropriate. The point is that DEBUG log level is appropriate for the glanceclient logs, since the glanceclient doesn't know if a 404 is something to be concerned about or not. To glanceclient, the call succeeded. Communication with the Glance API server worked, authentication worked, and the server returned successfully stating that the image does not exist. -jay > rather than just a wsgi return code or having to run the system on DEBUG logging to get that information. - Erno ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
> -Original Message- > From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] > Sent: 16 September 2014 17:31 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log > level > guidelines > > On 09/16/2014 12:07 PM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] > >> Sent: 16 September 2014 15:56 > >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the > >> log level guidelines > >> > >> On 09/16/2014 10:16 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: > >>>> -Original Message- > >>>> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] > >>>> Sent: 16 September 2014 12:40 > >>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting > >>>> the log level guidelines > >>>> > >>>> On 09/16/2014 06:44 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: > >>>>>> -Original Message- > >>>>>> From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] > >>>>>> Sent: 16 September 2014 10:08 > >>>>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting > >>>>>> the log level guidelines > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 09/16/2014 01:10 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > >>>>>>> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-09-15 16:02:04 -0700: > >>>>>>>> On 09/15/2014 07:00 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hi there logging experts, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We've recently had a little disagreement in the glance team > >>>>>>>>> about the appropriate log levels for http requests that end up > >>>>>>>>> failing due to user errors. An example would be a request to > >>>>>>>>> get an image that does not exist, which results in a 404 Not > >>>>>>>>> Found > >> request. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On one hand, this event is an error, so DEBUG or INFO seem a > >>>>>>>>> little too low. On the other hand, this error doesn't > >>>>>>>>> generally require any kind of operator investigation or > >>>>>>>>> indicate any actual failure of the service, so perhaps it is > >>>>>>>>> excessive to log it at WARN or > >>>> ERROR. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Please provide feedback to help us resolve this dispute if you > >>>>>>>>> feel you > >>>>>> can! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> My feeling is this is an INFO level. There is really nothing > >>>>>>>> the admin should care about here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Agree with Sean. INFO are useful for investigations. WARN and > >>>>>>> ERROR are cause for alarm. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1 this is what we do in Zaqar as well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> @flaper87 > >>>>>> Flavio Percoco > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I think the debate here does not only limit to 404s. By the > >>>>> logging guidelines > >>>> INFO level messages should not contain any error related messages > >>>> but rather stuff like certain components starting/stopping, config info, > etc. > >>>> WARN should not be anything that gets the ops pulled out of bed and > >>>> so > >> on. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also all information that would be in interest of ops should be > >>>>> logged > >>>> INFO+. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now if we are logging user errors as WARN that makes the > >>>>> environment > >>>> supportable even if the logging has been set as high as WARN > >>>> cleaning the output a lot (as INFO shouldn't contain anything out > >>>> of order > >> anyways). &g
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
On 09/16/2014 12:07 PM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] >> Sent: 16 September 2014 15:56 >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log >> level >> guidelines >> >> On 09/16/2014 10:16 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] >>>> Sent: 16 September 2014 12:40 >>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the >>>> log level guidelines >>>> >>>> On 09/16/2014 06:44 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: >>>>>> -Original Message- >>>>>> From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] >>>>>> Sent: 16 September 2014 10:08 >>>>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting >>>>>> the log level guidelines >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/16/2014 01:10 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: >>>>>>> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-09-15 16:02:04 -0700: >>>>>>>> On 09/15/2014 07:00 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi there logging experts, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We've recently had a little disagreement in the glance team >>>>>>>>> about the appropriate log levels for http requests that end up >>>>>>>>> failing due to user errors. An example would be a request to get >>>>>>>>> an image that does not exist, which results in a 404 Not Found >> request. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On one hand, this event is an error, so DEBUG or INFO seem a >>>>>>>>> little too low. On the other hand, this error doesn't generally >>>>>>>>> require any kind of operator investigation or indicate any >>>>>>>>> actual failure of the service, so perhaps it is excessive to log >>>>>>>>> it at WARN or >>>> ERROR. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please provide feedback to help us resolve this dispute if you >>>>>>>>> feel you >>>>>> can! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My feeling is this is an INFO level. There is really nothing the >>>>>>>> admin should care about here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agree with Sean. INFO are useful for investigations. WARN and >>>>>>> ERROR are cause for alarm. >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 this is what we do in Zaqar as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> @flaper87 >>>>>> Flavio Percoco >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think the debate here does not only limit to 404s. By the logging >>>>> guidelines >>>> INFO level messages should not contain any error related messages but >>>> rather stuff like certain components starting/stopping, config info, etc. >>>> WARN should not be anything that gets the ops pulled out of bed and so >> on. >>>>> >>>>> Also all information that would be in interest of ops should be >>>>> logged >>>> INFO+. >>>>> >>>>> Now if we are logging user errors as WARN that makes the environment >>>> supportable even if the logging has been set as high as WARN cleaning >>>> the output a lot (as INFO shouldn't contain anything out of order >> anyways). >>>> Current situation is that logging at DEBUG level is the only option >>>> to get the needed information to actually run the services and get >>>> the data needed to support it as well. If we log user errors on INFO >>>> we get one step higher but we still have all that clutter like every >>>> single request in the logs and if that's the direction we want to go, we >> should revisit our logging guidelines as well. >>>>> >>>>> Thus my two euro cents goes towards WARN rather than debug and >>>> definitely not INFO. >>>> >>>> Part of it is how often you expect things to happen as well. Remember >>>&
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
> -Original Message- > From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] > Sent: 16 September 2014 15:56 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log > level > guidelines > > On 09/16/2014 10:16 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] > >> Sent: 16 September 2014 12:40 > >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the > >> log level guidelines > >> > >> On 09/16/2014 06:44 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: > >>>> -Original Message- > >>>> From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] > >>>> Sent: 16 September 2014 10:08 > >>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting > >>>> the log level guidelines > >>>> > >>>> On 09/16/2014 01:10 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > >>>>> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-09-15 16:02:04 -0700: > >>>>>> On 09/15/2014 07:00 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi there logging experts, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We've recently had a little disagreement in the glance team > >>>>>>> about the appropriate log levels for http requests that end up > >>>>>>> failing due to user errors. An example would be a request to get > >>>>>>> an image that does not exist, which results in a 404 Not Found > request. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On one hand, this event is an error, so DEBUG or INFO seem a > >>>>>>> little too low. On the other hand, this error doesn't generally > >>>>>>> require any kind of operator investigation or indicate any > >>>>>>> actual failure of the service, so perhaps it is excessive to log > >>>>>>> it at WARN or > >> ERROR. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please provide feedback to help us resolve this dispute if you > >>>>>>> feel you > >>>> can! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My feeling is this is an INFO level. There is really nothing the > >>>>>> admin should care about here. > >>>>> > >>>>> Agree with Sean. INFO are useful for investigations. WARN and > >>>>> ERROR are cause for alarm. > >>>> > >>>> +1 this is what we do in Zaqar as well. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> @flaper87 > >>>> Flavio Percoco > >>>> > >>> > >>> I think the debate here does not only limit to 404s. By the logging > >>> guidelines > >> INFO level messages should not contain any error related messages but > >> rather stuff like certain components starting/stopping, config info, etc. > >> WARN should not be anything that gets the ops pulled out of bed and so > on. > >>> > >>> Also all information that would be in interest of ops should be > >>> logged > >> INFO+. > >>> > >>> Now if we are logging user errors as WARN that makes the environment > >> supportable even if the logging has been set as high as WARN cleaning > >> the output a lot (as INFO shouldn't contain anything out of order > anyways). > >> Current situation is that logging at DEBUG level is the only option > >> to get the needed information to actually run the services and get > >> the data needed to support it as well. If we log user errors on INFO > >> we get one step higher but we still have all that clutter like every > >> single request in the logs and if that's the direction we want to go, we > should revisit our logging guidelines as well. > >>> > >>> Thus my two euro cents goes towards WARN rather than debug and > >> definitely not INFO. > >> > >> Part of it is how often you expect things to happen as well. Remember > >> glanceclient opperates in the context of "other" processes. When it > >> hits a 404 in Glance, it's not running in the glance context, it's > >> running in the Nova context. Which means it needs to think of itself in > that context. > >> > >> In that context we got
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
On 09/16/2014 10:16 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] >> Sent: 16 September 2014 12:40 >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log >> level >> guidelines >> >> On 09/16/2014 06:44 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] >>>> Sent: 16 September 2014 10:08 >>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the >>>> log level guidelines >>>> >>>> On 09/16/2014 01:10 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: >>>>> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-09-15 16:02:04 -0700: >>>>>> On 09/15/2014 07:00 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: >>>>>>> Hi there logging experts, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We've recently had a little disagreement in the glance team about >>>>>>> the appropriate log levels for http requests that end up failing >>>>>>> due to user errors. An example would be a request to get an image >>>>>>> that does not exist, which results in a 404 Not Found request. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On one hand, this event is an error, so DEBUG or INFO seem a >>>>>>> little too low. On the other hand, this error doesn't generally >>>>>>> require any kind of operator investigation or indicate any actual >>>>>>> failure of the service, so perhaps it is excessive to log it at WARN or >> ERROR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please provide feedback to help us resolve this dispute if you >>>>>>> feel you >>>> can! >>>>>> >>>>>> My feeling is this is an INFO level. There is really nothing the >>>>>> admin should care about here. >>>>> >>>>> Agree with Sean. INFO are useful for investigations. WARN and ERROR >>>>> are cause for alarm. >>>> >>>> +1 this is what we do in Zaqar as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> @flaper87 >>>> Flavio Percoco >>>> >>> >>> I think the debate here does not only limit to 404s. By the logging >>> guidelines >> INFO level messages should not contain any error related messages but >> rather stuff like certain components starting/stopping, config info, etc. >> WARN should not be anything that gets the ops pulled out of bed and so on. >>> >>> Also all information that would be in interest of ops should be logged >> INFO+. >>> >>> Now if we are logging user errors as WARN that makes the environment >> supportable even if the logging has been set as high as WARN cleaning the >> output a lot (as INFO shouldn't contain anything out of order anyways). >> Current situation is that logging at DEBUG level is the only option to get >> the >> needed information to actually run the services and get the data needed to >> support it as well. If we log user errors on INFO we get one step higher but >> we still have all that clutter like every single request in the logs and if >> that's >> the direction we want to go, we should revisit our logging guidelines as >> well. >>> >>> Thus my two euro cents goes towards WARN rather than debug and >> definitely not INFO. >> >> Part of it is how often you expect things to happen as well. Remember >> glanceclient opperates in the context of "other" processes. When it hits a >> 404 >> in Glance, it's not running in the glance context, it's running in the Nova >> context. Which means it needs to think of itself in that context. >> >> In that context we got the exception back from Glance, we know the image >> wasn't there. And we know whether or not that's a problem (glanceclient >> actually has no idea if it's a problem or not, we might be checking to make >> sure a thing isn't there, and success for us is the 404). >> >> So actually, I'm back to Jay on this, it should be DEBUG. Nova (or whoever >> the >> caller is) can decide if the issue warents something larger than that. >> >> This is really the biggest issue with logging in the clients, people don't >> think >> about the context that they are running in. >>
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
> -Original Message- > From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net] > Sent: 16 September 2014 12:40 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log > level > guidelines > > On 09/16/2014 06:44 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] > >> Sent: 16 September 2014 10:08 > >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the > >> log level guidelines > >> > >> On 09/16/2014 01:10 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > >>> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-09-15 16:02:04 -0700: > >>>> On 09/15/2014 07:00 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: > >>>>> Hi there logging experts, > >>>>> > >>>>> We've recently had a little disagreement in the glance team about > >>>>> the appropriate log levels for http requests that end up failing > >>>>> due to user errors. An example would be a request to get an image > >>>>> that does not exist, which results in a 404 Not Found request. > >>>>> > >>>>> On one hand, this event is an error, so DEBUG or INFO seem a > >>>>> little too low. On the other hand, this error doesn't generally > >>>>> require any kind of operator investigation or indicate any actual > >>>>> failure of the service, so perhaps it is excessive to log it at WARN or > ERROR. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please provide feedback to help us resolve this dispute if you > >>>>> feel you > >> can! > >>>> > >>>> My feeling is this is an INFO level. There is really nothing the > >>>> admin should care about here. > >>> > >>> Agree with Sean. INFO are useful for investigations. WARN and ERROR > >>> are cause for alarm. > >> > >> +1 this is what we do in Zaqar as well. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> @flaper87 > >> Flavio Percoco > >> > > > > I think the debate here does not only limit to 404s. By the logging > > guidelines > INFO level messages should not contain any error related messages but > rather stuff like certain components starting/stopping, config info, etc. > WARN should not be anything that gets the ops pulled out of bed and so on. > > > > Also all information that would be in interest of ops should be logged > INFO+. > > > > Now if we are logging user errors as WARN that makes the environment > supportable even if the logging has been set as high as WARN cleaning the > output a lot (as INFO shouldn't contain anything out of order anyways). > Current situation is that logging at DEBUG level is the only option to get the > needed information to actually run the services and get the data needed to > support it as well. If we log user errors on INFO we get one step higher but > we still have all that clutter like every single request in the logs and if > that's > the direction we want to go, we should revisit our logging guidelines as well. > > > > Thus my two euro cents goes towards WARN rather than debug and > definitely not INFO. > > Part of it is how often you expect things to happen as well. Remember > glanceclient opperates in the context of "other" processes. When it hits a 404 > in Glance, it's not running in the glance context, it's running in the Nova > context. Which means it needs to think of itself in that context. > > In that context we got the exception back from Glance, we know the image > wasn't there. And we know whether or not that's a problem (glanceclient > actually has no idea if it's a problem or not, we might be checking to make > sure a thing isn't there, and success for us is the 404). > > So actually, I'm back to Jay on this, it should be DEBUG. Nova (or whoever the > caller is) can decide if the issue warents something larger than that. > > This is really the biggest issue with logging in the clients, people don't > think > about the context that they are running in. > > -Sean > > -- > Sean Dague > http://dague.net > Sean, I'm not sure if we were specific enough here. Not talking about client but the server logging. So how we should log events like client trying to change protected properties, access non existing image, create duplicate image IDs, etc. So for example if Nova is trying to access image that does not exist should we ignore it on Glance side or when the user tries to do something that does not succeed. In my point of view it makes life much easier if we have information where the request failed rather than just a wsgi return code or having to run the system on DEBUG logging to get that information. - Erno ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
On 09/16/2014 06:44 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] >> Sent: 16 September 2014 10:08 >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log >> level >> guidelines >> >> On 09/16/2014 01:10 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: >>> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-09-15 16:02:04 -0700: >>>> On 09/15/2014 07:00 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: >>>>> Hi there logging experts, >>>>> >>>>> We've recently had a little disagreement in the glance team about >>>>> the appropriate log levels for http requests that end up failing due >>>>> to user errors. An example would be a request to get an image that >>>>> does not exist, which results in a 404 Not Found request. >>>>> >>>>> On one hand, this event is an error, so DEBUG or INFO seem a little >>>>> too low. On the other hand, this error doesn't generally require any >>>>> kind of operator investigation or indicate any actual failure of the >>>>> service, so perhaps it is excessive to log it at WARN or ERROR. >>>>> >>>>> Please provide feedback to help us resolve this dispute if you feel you >> can! >>>> >>>> My feeling is this is an INFO level. There is really nothing the >>>> admin should care about here. >>> >>> Agree with Sean. INFO are useful for investigations. WARN and ERROR >>> are cause for alarm. >> >> +1 this is what we do in Zaqar as well. >> >> >> -- >> @flaper87 >> Flavio Percoco >> > > I think the debate here does not only limit to 404s. By the logging > guidelines INFO level messages should not contain any error related messages > but rather stuff like certain components starting/stopping, config info, etc. > WARN should not be anything that gets the ops pulled out of bed and so on. > > Also all information that would be in interest of ops should be logged INFO+. > > Now if we are logging user errors as WARN that makes the environment > supportable even if the logging has been set as high as WARN cleaning the > output a lot (as INFO shouldn't contain anything out of order anyways). > Current situation is that logging at DEBUG level is the only option to get > the needed information to actually run the services and get the data needed > to support it as well. If we log user errors on INFO we get one step higher > but we still have all that clutter like every single request in the logs and > if that's the direction we want to go, we should revisit our logging > guidelines as well. > > Thus my two euro cents goes towards WARN rather than debug and definitely not > INFO. Part of it is how often you expect things to happen as well. Remember glanceclient opperates in the context of "other" processes. When it hits a 404 in Glance, it's not running in the glance context, it's running in the Nova context. Which means it needs to think of itself in that context. In that context we got the exception back from Glance, we know the image wasn't there. And we know whether or not that's a problem (glanceclient actually has no idea if it's a problem or not, we might be checking to make sure a thing isn't there, and success for us is the 404). So actually, I'm back to Jay on this, it should be DEBUG. Nova (or whoever the caller is) can decide if the issue warents something larger than that. This is really the biggest issue with logging in the clients, people don't think about the context that they are running in. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
> -Original Message- > From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] > Sent: 16 September 2014 10:08 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log > level > guidelines > > On 09/16/2014 01:10 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > > Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-09-15 16:02:04 -0700: > >> On 09/15/2014 07:00 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: > >>> Hi there logging experts, > >>> > >>> We've recently had a little disagreement in the glance team about > >>> the appropriate log levels for http requests that end up failing due > >>> to user errors. An example would be a request to get an image that > >>> does not exist, which results in a 404 Not Found request. > >>> > >>> On one hand, this event is an error, so DEBUG or INFO seem a little > >>> too low. On the other hand, this error doesn't generally require any > >>> kind of operator investigation or indicate any actual failure of the > >>> service, so perhaps it is excessive to log it at WARN or ERROR. > >>> > >>> Please provide feedback to help us resolve this dispute if you feel you > can! > >> > >> My feeling is this is an INFO level. There is really nothing the > >> admin should care about here. > > > > Agree with Sean. INFO are useful for investigations. WARN and ERROR > > are cause for alarm. > > +1 this is what we do in Zaqar as well. > > > -- > @flaper87 > Flavio Percoco > I think the debate here does not only limit to 404s. By the logging guidelines INFO level messages should not contain any error related messages but rather stuff like certain components starting/stopping, config info, etc. WARN should not be anything that gets the ops pulled out of bed and so on. Also all information that would be in interest of ops should be logged INFO+. Now if we are logging user errors as WARN that makes the environment supportable even if the logging has been set as high as WARN cleaning the output a lot (as INFO shouldn't contain anything out of order anyways). Current situation is that logging at DEBUG level is the only option to get the needed information to actually run the services and get the data needed to support it as well. If we log user errors on INFO we get one step higher but we still have all that clutter like every single request in the logs and if that's the direction we want to go, we should revisit our logging guidelines as well. Thus my two euro cents goes towards WARN rather than debug and definitely not INFO. - Erno (jokke) Kuvaja ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
On 09/16/2014 01:10 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-09-15 16:02:04 -0700: >> On 09/15/2014 07:00 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: >>> Hi there logging experts, >>> >>> We've recently had a little disagreement in the glance team about the >>> appropriate log levels for http requests that end up failing due to user >>> errors. An example would be a request to get an image that does not >>> exist, which results in a 404 Not Found request. >>> >>> On one hand, this event is an error, so DEBUG or INFO seem a little too >>> low. On the other hand, this error doesn't generally require any kind of >>> operator investigation or indicate any actual failure of the service, so >>> perhaps it is excessive to log it at WARN or ERROR. >>> >>> Please provide feedback to help us resolve this dispute if you feel you can! >> >> My feeling is this is an INFO level. There is really nothing the admin >> should care about here. > > Agree with Sean. INFO are useful for investigations. WARN and ERROR are > cause for alarm. +1 this is what we do in Zaqar as well. -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
On 09/15/2014 07:00 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: Hi there logging experts, We've recently had a little disagreement in the glance team about the appropriate log levels for http requests that end up failing due to user errors. An example would be a request to get an image that does not exist, which results in a 404 Not Found request. On one hand, this event is an error, so DEBUG or INFO seem a little too low. But it's not an error. I mean, it's an error for the user, but the software (Glance) has not acted in a way that is either unrecoverable or requires action. I think DEBUG is the appropriate level to log this. That said, standard WSGI logging dictates that there be a single INFO-level log line that logs the URI request made and the HTTP return code sent, so there should already be an INFO level log line that would have the 40X return code in it. Best, -jay > On the other hand, this error doesn't generally require any kind of operator investigation or indicate any actual failure of the service, so perhaps it is excessive to log it at WARN or ERROR. Please provide feedback to help us resolve this dispute if you feel you can! Thanks, markwash ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-09-15 16:02:04 -0700: > On 09/15/2014 07:00 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: > > Hi there logging experts, > > > > We've recently had a little disagreement in the glance team about the > > appropriate log levels for http requests that end up failing due to user > > errors. An example would be a request to get an image that does not > > exist, which results in a 404 Not Found request. > > > > On one hand, this event is an error, so DEBUG or INFO seem a little too > > low. On the other hand, this error doesn't generally require any kind of > > operator investigation or indicate any actual failure of the service, so > > perhaps it is excessive to log it at WARN or ERROR. > > > > Please provide feedback to help us resolve this dispute if you feel you can! > > My feeling is this is an INFO level. There is really nothing the admin > should care about here. Agree with Sean. INFO are useful for investigations. WARN and ERROR are cause for alarm. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
On 09/15/2014 07:00 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote: > Hi there logging experts, > > We've recently had a little disagreement in the glance team about the > appropriate log levels for http requests that end up failing due to user > errors. An example would be a request to get an image that does not > exist, which results in a 404 Not Found request. > > On one hand, this event is an error, so DEBUG or INFO seem a little too > low. On the other hand, this error doesn't generally require any kind of > operator investigation or indicate any actual failure of the service, so > perhaps it is excessive to log it at WARN or ERROR. > > Please provide feedback to help us resolve this dispute if you feel you can! My feeling is this is an INFO level. There is really nothing the admin should care about here. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [glance][all] Help with interpreting the log level guidelines
Hi there logging experts, We've recently had a little disagreement in the glance team about the appropriate log levels for http requests that end up failing due to user errors. An example would be a request to get an image that does not exist, which results in a 404 Not Found request. On one hand, this event is an error, so DEBUG or INFO seem a little too low. On the other hand, this error doesn't generally require any kind of operator investigation or indicate any actual failure of the service, so perhaps it is excessive to log it at WARN or ERROR. Please provide feedback to help us resolve this dispute if you feel you can! Thanks, markwash ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
